Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flora Footbridge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It's clear that footbridges can be notable (see Category:Footbridges). The question is whether this one is, and there's no real agreement on whether the sources are good enough to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Footbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pedestrian bridge under construction; references are ordinary coverage of government permits. Flora MacDonald (politician) is a possible redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Footbridges are generally notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GEOFEAT. SportingFlyer talk 07:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 07:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GEOFEAT says " ...(bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG." and I believe this passes GNG as is. The fact that it is named after a very notable Canadian politician means that it will surely get more coverage at its inauguration (no need for a WP:Crystal ball for that I think). I have moved the page to its official name Passerelle Flora Footbridge as per the city of Ottawa source and the Mainstreamer source. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:GEOFEATI added this page because a) There was a link to it on the Rideau Canal page (the link was not added by me); b) There was an unlinked reference to it on the Flora MacDonald (politician) page (which I turned into a link); c) The Rideau Canal is a UNESCO cultural heritage site, and all its bridges in Ottawa are in Wikipedia, including Corktown Footbridge downstream, so it seemed odd not to have a parallel article; d) The span is complete as of this past July (I was planning to add a picture to Commons) and attach it; e) There is additional history (to be added) about this bridge. With regard to the naming: I note that the Corktown Footbridge is also officially Passerelle Corktown Footbridge, yet the Wikipedia article's title is just Corktown Footbridge (and gives the French name as the alternative), hence the naming I used. That would be consistent with the way other geographical features in Ottawa are referenced in Wikipedia. Another example is Adàwe Crossing, a third footbridge in the area. Timothy C. Lethbridge (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources in English call it "Passerelle Flora Footbridge" there is no reason to remove the first word. The French version of the town's article on the footbridge also calls it Passerelle Flora Footbridge. It is WP:COMMONNAME that decides how the articles are titled. I haven't looked at the other articles but here the common name is clearly Passerelle Flora Footbridge. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with WP:GNG though - the Ottawa source is WP:PRIMARY and there's a decent question about the reliability of the source of a local community newspaper. SportingFlyer talk 01:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dom from Paris. Satisfies GNG and part of a UNESCO cultural heritage site. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because we have an article on the Rideau Canal. James500 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bridges are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because of who they're named after or what they happen to cross over — and GEOFEAT does not say that bridges get an automatic notability freebie just for existing, either, it says they're considered notable if they clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. But the sources here are a primary source from the city's own website, the local neighbourhood pennysaver and a 148-word blurb in the local daily — which means two of them are not support for notability at all, while the third is a start toward getting this over GNG but not substantive enough to carry it over the finish line all by itself as the only GNG-eligible source in play. This doesn't necessarily have to have grand claims of architectural or historic uniqueness to qualify, though those certainly wouldn't hurt — the absolute minimum baseline that it has to meet is clearing GNG on the sources, but these sources aren't clearing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat above - falls far short of GNG. MB 02:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, based on coverage so far, AGF on assertions of further coverage already available, and while it is also reasonable to expect there will be more coverage as this is completed and opened. For those who prefer to get rid of this as a separate article, a different way forward would be to create a section in Rideau Canal or a separate article on crossings of the Rideau Canal, where this could possibly be covered instead, to which this could be merged.--Doncram (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "coverage so far" is demonstrating notability at all? None of the sources present here are good enough as it stands, and nobody's shown any evidence in this discussion of stronger sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this should not be deleted outright. At worst it could be moved to Crossings of the Rideau Canal (which I assume is obviously acceptable as a list-article) for expansion. We are obligated to look for alternatives to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Comment’’’. The article creator should please go ahead and upload photo(s), which would have forestalled any AFD. It is a major, elegant, multimillion dollar bridge befitting the capital city. Photo in one of sources given makes all that clear, at least for Participants of AFDs about major footbridges such as one near San Francisco recently. Many nondescript dumpy concrete slab or girder footbridges are not notable, but major elegant architectural works are. Also please round up a price tag. —Doncram (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of a subject don't magically forestall AFD discussion all by themselves, if the referencing isn't up to scratch. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a link to the policy that articles with photos cannot be deleted, even if (like this one) they don't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 19:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bridges the Rideau Canal in the center of the capitol city of Canada, so M.P.s and ordinary commuters will ice skate to work under it. And while it does not appear to be designed by a marquee architect, I think it passes WP:GNG due to extensive news coverage, much of the coverage, to be sure, is curmudgeonly garrumphing over the choice of the name, like this opinion essay in the Edmonton Sun: [ https://edmontonsun.com/news/local-news/egan-why-we-shouldnt-fawn-over-footbridge-named-flora/wcm/5c4ba78d-8832-4b52-a46b-c75ee348d3f4EGAN: Footbridge named Flora? Why we shouldn't fawn over it]. Quite a lot of that sort of thing from crotchety Canadians. They do get intense about naming footbridges in Ottawa, cf. Corktown Footbridge#Origins#Naming; not much to do in Ottawa except look at the tulips and ride a bike over the Rideau. Nevertleless, it's a $21 million project and been in the news for years New footbridge to be built over the Rideau Canal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sources, and footbridges can meet WP:GNG (eg: Jade's Crossing) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.